Case name and citation: Valilas v. Januzaj [2014] EWCA Civ 436 Court and Judges: -Lady Justice Arden, -Lord Justice Underhill -Lord Justice Floyd Parties: -Ioannis Valilas (Claimant) -Valdet Januzaj (Defendant). Procedural History: This appeal was brought forth on behalf of the appellant against a decision made by Judge Hooper QC, sitting in the Worcester County Court Material Facts: The claimant and defendant both are dentists. The Defendant is the principle of Droitwich Spa Dental Practices and the claimant operated under what was referred to as “the facilities contract” which entailed paying the defendant 50% of his receipts for the use of Droitwich Spa Dental Practices (DSDP) equipment and staff. Most of the claimants …show more content…
Both parties exchanged a string of letters. On a letter sent on the 15th of June the defendant stated that unless an official agreement was signed between the two parties this letter should be considered as an advance notice of termination. On the 21st of September the claimant stated in a letter that unless the issues between them were resolved he would no longer make payments. From the 11th of November onwards the claimant was prohibited from entering the premises. The claimant sued claiming damages for the breach of the “facilities contract” and the defendant …show more content…
As a result of the claimants actions the defendant was left to endure the whole costs of the practice. The Lord Justice in reference to the somewhat comparable, though not identical, case of Withers v. Reynolds [1831], in which it was held that altering the substance of an agreement would result in a repudiatory breach, indicated that the claimant was not fulfilling his contractual obligations, which implied his intentions to not comply with the
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
PART B: CAN GRACE CLAIM DAMAGES FOR: i) $25,000 spent in the leasing larger premises and placing advertisement ii) $20,000 paid to fulfil the contract with
He remained an undischarged bankrupt when the proceedings were commenced against the respondent. The judge of the original trial struck out the appellant’s claims for damages, declaring it a nullity from the outset as the relief sought was vested in the appellant’s trustee in bankruptcy. The appellant made an appeal to the Court of Appeal, who stayed the decision, pending the completion of the trial. The trial resumed, subject to the outcome of the appeal regarding the appellant’s bankruptcy. The trial court found that the appellant was entitled to a 24-month notice period for termination, and the appellant was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and aggravated damages in the amount of $15,000 for mental distress, for both tort and contract. However, the appellant was not awarded punitive damages. With regard to the bankruptcy issue, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, concluding that the appellant was within his legal rights to continue the action without a trustee. The Court of Appeal also allowed a cross-appeal by the respondent, which saw the reasonable notice period reduced from 24 months to 15 months. The appeal court also overturned the trial court’s award of aggravated
The plaintiff is due a form of repayment/compensation as stated within the case, due to the negligence presented by Silverline construction ltd. Emma suffered serious facial injuries and concussion and could not carry out her work for 6 months. The case of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562 ‘’you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour?’’ this effectively means that Silverline construction ltd. should have foreseen the possibility of there being a failure in the buildings construction taking into consideration the residence within the parameter of the site. I have simply stated the basis that Emma is owed a duty of care due to their negligence.
Markan's ('P') appeal was refused second time in a row and brought proceeding against the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Queensland Police Service and Bar Association Queensland ('D'). He also brought an appeal in the Court of Appeal but it was dismissed.
In this report an in depth analysis was undertaken to identify the SSHE principles conducted on the findings and relevance from case ‘Inspector Petar Ankucic v Drake Personnel Limited, t/as Drake [1997] NSWIRComm 157’ on the 25th of November 1997.
Pursuant to section 561 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act), the Prosecution counsel seeks an appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland, from the decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court given on 11/10/2017.
REASON: Because the Nguyens terminated the contract due to Morton’s negligence of the property code, they were awarded with the following; actual damages, liquidated damages for violation of the property code, statutory remedy for violations of the finance code, mental anguish damages, attorney’s fee, and costs. However, Chapter’s 5, Subchapter D provides both parties with restitution benefits, not just one of them. Because the court did not consider the time the Nguyens spent in the property, the case was referred to the trial court to decide Nguyens’ responsibility for the rental value
FACTS: David W. Elrod, litigation law firm, hired A-Legal, litigation support services, on January 26, 2009 and delivered to them documents and computer disks to start electronic discovery work on the “R Project”. A few days after A-Legal received the necessary files to begin working they informed Elrod that their services were going to be twice as much than what had been previously mentioned. Elrod, subsequently, cancelled their arrangements and looked elsewhere for services. A-Legal submitted its files as requested and billed Elrod $15,000.00, which Elrod refused to pay. A-Legal filed suite for breach of contract and Elrod counterclaimed for breach of contract, as well. Elrod argued that A-Legal violated the contract because they did not perform the work they requested at A-Legal. Instead, Elrod claims that A-Legal had an outside company do their work; furthermore, the work delivered was not completed as agreed upon. While at trial A-Legal claimed damages for the bill that was unpaid and Elrod claimed damages from lost revenue and lost business opportunity due to A-Legal’s breach. The trial court ruled in favor of Elrod and awarded $20,000 in damages and $60,000 in attorney’s fees. Before a written judgment was rendered, Elrod filed a motion to re-open evidence under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270. The motion was granted and the trial court rendered a written judgment, almost three months later, in favor of Elrod.
The announcement in the High Court order is based upon the conclusion of the learned High Court judge that the respondent acted unlawfully in the exercise of its statutory powers by refusing to deal with the applicant's duly appointed solicitor in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries.The high court also ordered that the applicant must recover costs from the respondent in respect for the application for leave to bring judicial review, the costs of substantive hearing of three days and the cost of taking judgement must be
“A breach of contract is committed when a party without lawful excuse fails or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs defectively or anticipates himself from performing.” The laws around breach of contract have often been criticized for their unfair results this may be because the law does not aim to punish the defendant to instead aim for restoration for the claimant. The inadequacy of compensation for breach of contract is a widely recognized problem. It seems that there are few cases where the claimant is able to claim their full damages generally they are given a nominal sum that seems almost irrelevant to the claim for damages it is only on rare occasions where the claimant is completely restored. It has been argued that unless the damages are adequately remedies the remedy is “ ...a hollow one stripped of all practical force and void of content.” There is much difficulty in determining how to award damages and this has often led to unfairness.When recovering damages for breach of contract, there are generally three types of interest that the courts consider in order to find the most just result for the claimant. These three interests are: Expectation interest, Restitution interest and reliance interest. Expectation interest is the most common of the three and is used even though it is often criticized for creating results that are not relative to the breach. This essay will reflect upon these three types of interest in order to prove that damages for breach of contract do not always create a fair result. This is because the law in this area is inconsistent, especially in relationship to restitution interest that appears to be more of an exception to a rule rather than a gateway to re...
The Crown attorneys said, “We proved that there was enough evidence for the accused to be sentenced. The judge made a bad call and we are appealing to the Supreme Court to have a retrial.”
Upon fulfillment of the four criteria, namely that the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the claimant’s expense and there are no defenses available for the defendant, a claimant may qualify for restitution of unjust enrichment as established in Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd. Change of position is one of the possible defences which may be used in occasions where it would be excessive to allow a claimant to claim restitution at the defendant’s expense. This essay will evaluate the defence of change of position and reinforce the fact that it is largely ineffective in protecting a defendant from hardship.
The county court judge found in favour of the plaintiff and Williams was awarded £3,500, but the defendants appealed on the basis that by completing the agreed work on time, Williams had done no more than he was already contractually bound to do under the existing contract. The
In short, it is a case of the plaintiff that the defendant is his close friend. The plaintiff and defendant used to work for the sugar factory. The defendant is a labour contractor and provides labours for sugar cutting. The defendant contacted the plaintiff and gave assurance him that he will supply labours for sugar cutting and demanded Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff initially avoided the defendant, but considering the close friendly relations, he agreed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the defendant in two installments. Thereafter, on 19/11/2007 the defendant has executed one agreement in favour of the plaintiff. In the said agreement, the defendant has clearly mentioned that he